A Christian Argument for Progressive Taxation

" They believed that a progressive tax would increase the overall morality of society." I'd be interested to know how having the government take money out of my pocket to give it to another person increases my sense of morality, and I don't see how multiplying that reaction across society would increase a culture's sense of morality. However, if I am allowed to keep my money to use it to help someone in need, I am thereby personally enriched by the act. The Book of Daniel depicts human governments as wild beasts, not as somehow benevolent moral entities. Government should be respected (Rom 13), but with awareness of how God sees them as wild beasts, they should be controlled and limited in power. The tea parties that occurred across the country, which were blatantly disrespected by the main stream media, were largely a reaction by citizens against what they see as government getting too big and out of control. These are legitimate concerns with significant implications for the future of this country.

This is an incredibly difficult issue for me to take a side on.

One the one hand, I get the argument here, and I understand how it derives from some of Jesus' teaching. Not that I think we can say Jesus endorses progressive taxation, but that one can derive such an argument from some of what Jesus said.

But on the other hand, this feels a lot like legalized Robin Hood, and I can completely understand those who argue that in an attempt to pursue justice, such policies betray justice by forsaking equity. In other words, we try to create equal opportunities for the poor by creating discriminatory taxation policies against the rich.

Third, I understand why there are secular arguments against such taxation policies, because it seems that such legislation is actually the legislation of religious convictions.

Finally, I often wonder about something Luther said in Freedom of a Christian. He argues that the ultimate goal of sanctification is the inward transformation that takes place in a person and that the inward transformation is what ultimately produces good works.

Yes, Christians can create laws that force unwilling people to care for the poor (which is at least part of the point of progressive taxation, I think?), but if we decide to do so, we should not lose sight of the fact that forcing compliance to God's law is not our ultimate goal -- and might actually be sort of backwards for us Protestants. If we advocate for legislation, let's not think that the battle is over once it's passed, because ultimately, the goal is to pursue the inward transformation that will make such legislation unnecessary.

I tried to edit this post, not sure it worked.

I meant to attach this to my paragraph on Luther:

The Christian "Prince" has the authority to enforce "good works" by "the sword" if necessary, but he must remember that doing so only conforms outward compliance from the individual; it does not do anything for the person internally. Consequently, policies such as this one are one-sided in that regard, and we need to be mindful of that -- yes, they do provide relief for the poor, but they do not necessarily accomplish any redemptive purposes for the rich.

"No, taxes aren't such a bad deal. Nor are they, as might have been heard at the ersatz 'tea parties' around the country, at odds with Christianity."

Who said that they were? Context please.

LV

You had 8 years to complain about record deficits and outrageous spending (on senseless war and corporate welfare, as opposed to the greater good). Yet you chose instead to go along with it, support it, vote for it and defend it. Now that someone is stepping in to try and undo the damage caused by it, you decide to take to the streets and complain about it all? Where were you for the last 8 years? Where was your outrage when it was actually happening? Right now we're looking at the CONSEQUENCES of the policies that conservatives implemented and supported for 8 years. You're blaming the current president for the mess he inherited, and criticizing him for trying to clean it up.

The "tea parties" were disrespected because they were steeped (heh) in hypocrisy and tinged with racism and hate. They were also based on incorrect propaganda, like complaining that Obama is raising our taxes... when probably 99% of everyone out there has had their taxes LOWERED. It's hard to take stuff like that seriously. Not to mention calling Obama "Hitler" (Hitler would have killed Obama) or a Socialist (he's not even a LIBERAL). It's all ridiculous, melodramatic, unfocused, ill-informed nonsense. It's just a bunch of people bitter and annoyed that their political views are no longer the majority, and no longer in power.

All I know is that for 8 years I was told by conservatives that protesting the government is treason, questioning the president is unpatriotic, "country first," "love it or leave it" and that I should have my citizenship revoked for protesting. I was "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by dissenting. Now suddenly it's all different. Now it's "patriotism" to call the president a fascist, refuse to pay the taxes that actually "support our troops" and threaten secession and armed revolution (um, those are the dictionary definitions of treason and sedition). Now suddenly it's perfectly OK--indeed patriotic--to protest and dissent. Now it's OK to say you do not agree with how the country is being run. Funny how it all changes when you're the minority. You spent 8 years telling us we were wrong and evil and friends of terrorists for daring to question the president or the government. Now it's no longer a disgrace to protest, but heroic.

Listen to yourselves, then maybe you'll realize why no one takes this nonsense seriously. It's hypocrisy. No one on the left would ever deny you the right to protest (like you did to us for 8 years). But at least we knew what we were protesting, and it was real. We weren't protesting wars that didn't exist, or blaming them on the wrong people, or complaining about stuff that we had in fact supported for 8 years. And we hadn't just spent 8 years spouting the exact opposite opinions, and using them to indict our fellow countrymen as "un-American."

As for charity, I know many conservatives and not one volunteers their time to any entity except their own church (when I talk about volunteer work to them, I get blank stares and comments like "and you don't get paid for this WHY?" They cannot comprehend the concept of working for something other than money, just for the good of the community). Not one gives to any charity besides ones that work to take away people's rights and freedoms (for the tax deduction, of course). Not charities to help people in need, but charities that seek to ensure that people they don't like are properly discriminated against. Sorry, that's NOT charity in the Christian spirit, donating only to hate groups. Tell me, who would Jesus hate?

Laurie, I think you are right about the last 8 years of out of control spending and rhetoric, but I don't agree that spending even more is the answer either. Remember we are called to love one another not tear down. Why do you want to label yourself and others? Let's call ourselves followers of Christ and call each other to action.

All I can say is that you know a different group of conservatives than the ones that I am around. I agree that republicans have not consistantly controlled spending better than the democrats. Perhaps that really reinforces the need for opposition. Human nature of anyone in power is to spend all they can to promote their agenda, especially in it's not their money.

"Thus, progressive theologians developed a Christian argument for taxation. They believed that a progressive tax would increase the overall morality of society. "

And how did that work out?

I actually believe in a flat tax, with a cut-off point for low-income earners. A few years ago, I was given a promotion and a raise. I ended up taking a tax cut because apparently, I had fallen into a different bracket. Basically, I was penalized for my success in having gotten my promotion and raise.

As far as the "tea parties:" For the first time in eight years, I actually got some tax relief in my paycheck. Where were the "tea parties" during all of the years that G.W. Bush kept sending my dollars down into the Black Hole in Iraq?

By the way, I noticed that the "tea-partyers" never demanded an end to taxation of Unemployment benefits. People also should not have their Social Security taxed either.

Always thought taxing unemployment benefits was like kicking someone when they were down .

Who is "you" in this rant?

And that is what I would call betraying justice through laws that are meant to promote it.

A very strange irony there.

I'm not at all convinced that Robin Hood tax policy is ever going to work here or elsewhere.

The first poster (who was the only poster at the time) complaining about the "tea parties" being disrespected. Point of the so-called rant is to say that after 8 years of spouting certain rhetoric and then turning around and contradicting every last bit of it when you're no longer in power is HYPOCRISY, and that tends to garner "disrespect." You can't spend 8 years supporting huge deficits and calling dissenters "unpatriotic," and then turn around and complain about deficits and call dissent "patriotic." This administration did not create the deficits. It inherited them. The protesters of today were the supporters of the last 8 years, but prefer to deny that reality.

And "supporting our troops" means more than putting a magnet or sticker on your car and waving a flag. It means paying the taxes and spending the money necessary to ensure their safety, health and well-being--both during AND after their service--in exchange for their sacrifices. The money for that doesn't grow on trees. It comes from government spending, which in turn comes from the citizens. Like we were told over and over again, "freedom isn't free." Or doesn't that count anymore, either? Like the rest of the "country first" rhetoric of the last 8 years that's now being contradicted?

It's going to take money to get out of the hole that's been dug for us all. And if you supported and defended the people who dug it, stop complaining and just let the government do their best to fix it. It won't fix itself.

Obama might have inherited a mess because of irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush administration (spending money we don't have), but help me to understand how following the same irresponsible policies, only in hyper-speed, is going to fix the problem.

Laurie -- There was a lot of complaining about Bush's fiscal policies during the Bush years, which is one of the reasons conservatives had become so disenchanted with the Republican party. The tea parties included a lot of Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans. Your comment that they were steeped in racism and hate is untrue. Also, as for charity, a study was done within the last couple of years comparing the level of charitable giving by those who identified themselves as conservative verses liberal (I guess the term is progressive now), and it turned out that conservatives were far more generous. The interesting thing, as I recall, is that it wasn't even close.

hammerud -- may you please cite the study?

(I don't doubt you, but I'd like to read it.)

Thanks.

I think the news about this came from a book Syracuse University
Professor Arthur C. Brooks "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth
About Compassionate Conservatism," a couple of years ago.

"It's going to take money to get out of the hole that's been dug for us all."

Might I remind you that JFK, by no means a conservative, said that it was a fundamental irony that lower taxes on the wealthy brought the government more revenue?

"Scudder pointed out that the income tax 'does not attack private property, but merely limits it at a point far above what most people reach'..."

In 1916, when Professor Vida Scudder wrote this, the progressive tax she was advocating consisted of a top tax rate of 15% for married taxable income over $2,000,000. If this was her idea of an adequate "check by common will on private greed" then sign me up! Let's scrap the current structure and return to this Christian ideal.

As for our current progressive system (and a BIG reason why so many people supported the TEA parties), when does a progressive tax code become too progressive and end up ultimately hurting even the people it originally intended to help. You could take away 100% of the taxable income of the currently defined "rich", and it would not be enough to pay for the budgets President Obama has proposed in the next few years. Then what? Soon the rich will have to be anyone making over $75,000 in order to set a tax policy that can even make a dent in our deficit. And that doesn't even address looming shortfalls for Medicare and Social Security.

I believe brgulker asked you to specify who the "you" is.

Your response indicated it to be the first poster. Since this blog has difficulty displaying comments consistently I am still not sure who you mean. But I think it is hammerud.

Your comment then talks about how hammerud has spent 8 years supporting deficits, calling persons unpatriotic, etc. Or maybe you were switching targets. Who is the "you"? Your points are fine--but fairness does require a little specificity.

The original comment simply stated persons at the protests feel government has gotten too big and out of control. I guess you think it is the right size or too small. Or maybe you agree but just think hammerud should not express the view.

I agree with you. We could take 100% of the money from the rich and
there still would be the poor, only more of them. How is destroying
our currency with this policy of monetary expansion going to help
matters? A friend of mine said, it is like paying for an overdrawn
bank account by writing a check from the same account to cover
things. And this is the best that our great minds could come up with?

That was a different time, however, because Europe and Japan were still recovering from World War II and the American economic machine was humming because it had not been touched.

Obama wasn't elected precisely because most people don't think he will.